This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of the “By Way of Reminder” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, August 25, 1996.
About this sermon
Roman, Lutheran, and Reformed views each reckon differently with the finality of Christ’s work, and that finality rules out any reliance on ongoing personal experience. Even Calvin’s view of the covenant was incomplete, and Warfield and Vos later closed that gap for the Protestant legacy.
Sermon transcript
Tonight we are reading from 1 Corinthians 1, and we are beginning at verse 18. Give your attention to God’s holy word. 1 Corinthians 1, verse 18: For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing, foolishness. But to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
For indeed, Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified: to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness. But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. For consider your call, brothers and sisters, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things that are strong. And the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen the things that are not, that he might nullify the things that are, so that no one should boast before God.
By his doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. But just as it is written, Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord. Our God, there are those all-important matters that are so central to our minds in our reflection upon our faith and your word.
At the same time, O God, we would not set aside those matters that might be considered secondary or peripheral. To this end, O Father, we would honor your Spirit, by whom and through whom your word comes, as well as the one whose ministry includes the ordering and structuring of your people. Therefore, O God, as we respect your word in regard to those central and all-important matters for our salvation, we also respect your word in regard to the government of your Church. Father, we ask for humble minds and teachable spirits, that we may not go beyond your word, but remain faithful to what you have revealed. To that end, O Father, we ask that we may be faithful to your word as it has been honored in the system of government we have embraced.
May this system of government be for our good and for your glory. We ask, therefore, Lord, that you would grant to your Church good and strong ministers of the word, righteous and true elders who can lead well, and deacons who are merciful and able to serve others. Do bless our officers here and also throughout your Church. May we be aware, O God, of how you bring us together with other Christian communities, even those who differ with us on matters of church government.
Yet, O God, may there be grace in us, insofar as we agree on the central matters of the gospel, so that your Spirit may work through us to bring unity among your people. This we ask through Christ, who is Head and King of the Church.
Amen. This brief series I have entitled, By Way of Reminder. I am engaged in it because, from time to time, it is well that I call your minds once more to the basic orientation of this pulpit. That is for the sake of newcomers, for the sake of long-time members, and for the sake of you children, who may be at the point in your lives when you are ready to grasp more fully what is presented in this church. If I were to identify a distinctive note for this ministry and this pulpit, taking my cue from 1 Corinthians chapter 1, verse 30, and from the way in which our Reformational heritage expounds upon that verse, that note would be finality. The finality of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for us. The finality of Jesus Christ and the nature of His saving work on our behalf.
If you want to know what the Protestant Reformation was all about, here it is in one word—finality. The Reformers confessed the finality of Christ’s death and the nature of His saving work, and surely the sufficiency of that saving work on behalf of sinners. Rome denied and continues to deny that finality and sufficiency. According to Rome, Christ’s cross merely renews sinners for a probationary state, as if they were being returned to the Garden of Eden and, like Adam, given a fresh choice between life and death. There is no finality in the preaching, ministry, and message of the Church of Rome. The Reformers, on the other hand, saw Christ’s death and the nature of His saving work in connection with a definitive, final resolution.
This means, then, that there is a dimension to the Reformers’ proclamation that recognizes the eschatological significance of Christ’s work and the finality of Christ’s work. And at least as far as Calvin and the Reformed Church’s perspective are concerned, this death of Christ and the nature of his saving work bring believers, in principle, into a final state of affairs. Grasp this point, for you see, it explains the Calvinistic emphasis on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It is only the Calvinists and the Reformed churches that have consistently proclaimed the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, because Calvin and those of Reformed persuasion understood that the finality of Christ’s death is connected to the believer’s position in relation to that death. There is a finality in Christ’s sacrifice and offering, and there is a finality in the believer’s position in relation to that death and not in relation to ongoing saving work. Thus, the perseverance of the saints.
Something final has taken place. Do you hear the emphasis? In Paul’s words, the point he makes so powerfully and forcefully in 1 Corinthians 1:30, “For by God’s doing we are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” Do you hear the finality of what the Apostle is stating there? But there has been a breakdown in the Reformation, from the Reformation, precisely at this point. Yes, you heard me correctly. There has been a breakdown in the Reformation and from the Reformation precisely at this point. The Lutherans hesitated. That is why some of you are here tonight. You are former Lutherans. And you know that the Lutherans hesitated.
Now, some have suggested that there was a weakness in Luther himself. To be sure, the finality of Christ’s work on the cross and the nature of his saving actions. But at the same time, some have asserted that there was a weakness in Luther himself. This is because there was a tendency toward an anthropocentric theology on Luther’s part, as opposed to a theocentric theology, such as that found in Calvin. By beginning with the question of my own justification, or with the issue of humanity’s possible justification before a holy God, it has been observed that Luther proposed a flawed system—one that at the outset capitulated to human need before considering God’s glory. There was a tendency in Luther toward a man-centered theology. Subsequent generations of Lutherans have then failed at a number of points, as has been contended. Building on this weakness in Luther and in others, Scripture has been compromised by the conviction that only those scriptures in which the doctrine of justification by faith can be clearly discerned are genuine scriptures.
Thus, there are scriptures in the canon, and there are other writings in the canon that are not considered equally authoritative. You remember Luther’s own case with respect to the epistle of James in this regard. He called it the epistle of straw. The effect of this was to produce a canon within the canon. Scripture, in effect, was set over against Scripture, even suggesting that there are contradictions within Scripture as one moves from one section to another. We must now address Luther’s disciple, Melanchthon.
For Melanchthon abandoned Luther’s steadfast commitment to Augustinianism, his steadfast commitment to predestination and election, and the sovereign disposition of God in the salvation of sinners. This led Lutheranism into a semi-Pelagian position, which made salvation a cooperative effort between God and humanity. This position obviously leads not only to a compromise regarding the doctrine of salvation from humanity’s perspective, but also a compromise concerning the sufficiency of Christ’s death, and certainly undermines any possibility for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints within confessional Lutheranism. Finally, Lutheranism took a step away from the finality of Christ’s death by making Luther’s own religious crisis—the experience through which he came to conviction on the doctrine of justification—the very avenue into the New Testament doctrine of salvation itself.
Luther’s experience of justification was judged to be the key to Paul’s teaching. But Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus was also judged to be a key to understanding that doctrine. Thus, experience—whether Luther’s or Paul’s—was elevated above the doctrine itself. It is not difficult to see in all this the growing emphasis on humanity and its experience, even as such emphasis begins to overshadow the finality of Christ’s sacrifice and the sufficiency of it.
There are reasons, then, why we are not Catholic. There are reasons why we are not Lutheran. But to criticize Rome and Luther does not leave Calvin untouched. For he too had weaknesses. Yes, Calvin, perhaps more consistently than others, recognized and upheld the finality of Christ’s work. And there are certainly passages in Calvin that urge us toward a fuller understanding of the covenant over which Christ presides, in which we are included. There is much language in Calvin concerning union with Christ. All of this is true. But at the same time, Calvin was not able, in a thorough and consistent manner, to grasp the firmness of that finality which Scripture proclaims regarding Christ’s work.
Like Luther, Calvin clearly saw that the gospel presented in the Scriptures—especially the doctrine of justification by faith alone—means that Christ gave himself for us. Amen. What was less clearly expressed in Calvin was the complementary truth of the gospel: that Christ’s work means our incorporation into Christ, since Christ is our covenantal head. In other words, it is not only Christ for us, but Christ in us, and we in Christ.
This truth was not expounded or emphasized as fully as the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact, there is a sense in which we must say that justification by faith alone has its proper context only in this other precious doctrine: Christ in us and we in Christ. This weakness in Calvin and in subsequent Calvinism made it especially difficult for Calvinists to understand the proper relationship between the full sufficiency and finality of Christ’s death and their own subjective experience of salvation. In other words, the proper relationship between redemption accomplished and redemption applied.
For example, Calvinists often seem unable to grasp the fact that the justification of the believer is grounded in the full, adequate, primal, and final justification of Christ. Before you are justified, Christ himself has already been justified, and the certainty of your justification is the certainty of his. The reason your justification is final is because Christ’s justification is final, and you share in that. The reason your justification is sufficient is because Christ’s justification is sufficient, and you share in that.
But to state the case more fully, the same applies to other aspects of our subjective appropriation of redemption. The same applies to our adoption and our sanctification. Your adoption is in Him, first of all and foremost, and because of Him. You must never think of your sanctification as something you do on your own, since Christ has already done everything else for you up to that point. Christ, therefore, precedes us in the experiences of justification, adoption, and sanctification through His death and resurrection. Your justification, adoption, and sanctification are an entering into His work through union with Him in His death and resurrection. Christ’s resurrection is His justification. It is also His adoption, whereby He is declared to be the Son of God. It is also His sanctification.
You may want to examine the opening verses of Romans 1 in this regard. These weaknesses, which we have discussed this evening—these weaknesses of Rome, these weaknesses in Luther, and also, yes, admittedly, in Calvin—have become the occasion for the religious struggles of the last 480 years. Both the denial of Christ’s finality by Rome and the incomplete affirmation of that finality by Lutherans and Calvinists have promoted new quests for security in a misguided Christian rationalism and a misdirected Christian pietism, neither of which have much to do with genuine biblical Christianity. In that last statement, I have just surveyed for you the history of Christ’s church in the eighteenth century.
There it is: the pietists reacting to insufficient proclamation, and the rationalists responding with their form of objectivism. But in the nineteenth century, it is a whole new situation. In the nineteenth century, that rationalism and that pietism actually—imagine it—joined forces, embraced one another, and in the liberal gospel and this new gospel, which is no gospel, became bold to claim an autonomy for its own religious perspective and commitment.
It had no difficulty asserting that Luther’s doctrine of justification was merely a hangover from his Jewish upbringing, and the fact that he still, unfortunately, looked at God as a judge who demanded legal satisfaction from sinners. Here were Protestants saying such things—liberal Protestants saying such things. But despite these vestiges of Judaism in Paul, according to the liberals, the real message from this man was what he had learned from the Gentile pagan mystery religions and their notions about spiritual union with a Redeemer. Thus, in the liberal version of Christianity, the doctrine of the Spirit and spiritual union with the Redeemer became paramount, set at odds with and antithetical to Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. Paul is at war with himself.
But even more, according to these liberals, Jesus became the promoter of a new religion, at the center of which stood the figure of Jesus, a religion demanding full faith in Jesus. According to the liberal, Jesus never intended to become the object of faith; he only set himself forth as an example of faith. According to the liberal, Jesus did not come to save us; he never intended such a message; he only came to lead us to higher ethical standards.
Thus, the nineteenth century brought the Protestant Church to a critical point and placed her at the end of her resources. Protestantism, having begun well with its declaration of the finality of Christ’s sacrifice for sinners, has, through certain weaknesses, compromised that commitment. Its nineteenth-century expression abandoned the finality of Christ’s sacrifice, treating it as something novel and unusual in Paul’s teaching, and something absent in Jesus’ teaching.
Is this our legacy? We are vastly outnumbered. The liberal church has, for the most part, controlled matters from the end of the nineteenth century through the entire twentieth century. Is this our legacy? It is into this desperate situation that the importance of old Princeton and Westminster Seminary becomes clear, and the importance of a confessional Orthodox Reformed theology. Yes, those institutions, and we ourselves, reflect the weaknesses already observed in Protestantism and in Calvinism generally. At the same time, there stood B. B. Warfield, and there stood Gerhardus Vos, especially Vos, who would fight against both the liberal assault and against the failures of Protestantism generally. Boss will concede that the Reformers themselves placed too much emphasis exclusively on the doctrine of justification, the doctrine of Christ for us.
But he will also contend that the entrance into Paul and into the gospel proclaimed by the Apostle is his doctrine of the Spirit, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and by that Spirit union with Christ. He will go on to say that Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith is indispensable and essential. And as indispensable, essential, consistent, and particularly focused, it is an outworking of Paul’s overall doctrine of the Spirit and of our union by the Spirit in Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, glorification, present heavenly reign, and consummate return. Furthermore, he contends that Jesus’ message about himself, his own self-consciousness, his own self-disclosure, and his teaching about the Kingdom of God and the Church are equivalent to Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit and Paul’s doctrine of union with Christ.
It all hangs together. Vos makes the case, and no one has answered him. Thus Vos reasserts the Protestant doctrine of the finality of Christ. But in full fashion, I intuit a more capable doctrine of the finality and harmony of the word of God in its entirety.
It is upon this foundation, then, that Mason and Van Til and Stonehouse and Murray and Gaffin build. In their efforts, they have been especially aided by a Dutch exegete by the name of Herman. I can say only that it is extremely important that the Church listen to these men if she is to breach the wall. Without the blessing of the Holy Spirit, which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to confer in and through these men, there will not be any breach. Here, then, is appropriate progress for Reformational theology.
Here is faithful exposition of the full finality of Christ and the sufficient, final, harmonious, and consistent witness to Christ in all of the Scriptures. This is so that you might know that your salvation from beginning to end is not only by Christ, but in Christ. And by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s ministry, a miracle takes place with regard to you, so that you are actually a participant in Christ’s death, resurrection, ascension, glorification, present heavenly session, and his eventual return. Truly, by God’s doing, you are in Christ Jesus.
Listen to the words of Scripture. You are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. To this end, just as it is written: “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” Amen. Our Father, bless us.
In our progress with regard to the truth of Your word, may the fullness of that finality and sufficiency in Christ and in Your word be honored by us. And Lord, we ask that, as far as we are concerned, we might give way in our boasting about ourselves, so that our boasting might be in You, and that because of all that You have done for us, and yes, in us, through and by Christ. Father, may this be a church that always honors the finality and the sufficiency of Christ’s death and the nature of His saving activity. We pray this through Christ, who even now has incorporated us into Himself, that we might appear.
The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.